ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2023
Implementation of best practice goal-setting in five rehabilitation services: A mixed-methods evaluation study.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of goal setting and behavior change training for transition care case managers using Kirkpatrick's Model.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-centered goal-setting in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis implementation study aimed to enhance the key elements of clinical practice goal-setting across 5 rehabilitation services.
designThis study followed a participatory action research approach guided by the Knowledge to Action framework.
methodsMedical record audits and structured client interviews were conducted prior to and following 12 weeks of implementation, in order to evaluate the success of the goal-setting implementation package.
resultsMedical record audits and interviews conducted pre-implementation (audits n = 132, interviews n = 64), post-implementation (audits n = 130, interviews n = 56) and at 3-month follow-up (audits n = 30) demonstrated varied success across sites. Following implementation 2 sites significantly improved their common goal focus (site 1 p ≤ 0.001, site 2 p = 0.005), these sites also demonstrated a significant increase in clients reporting that they received copies of their rehabilitation goals (site 1 p ≤ 0.001, site 2 p ≤ 0.001). Four sites improved client action planning, feedback and review, and 3 sites enhanced their specificity of goal-setting. At 3-month follow-up 4 sites had continued to improve their common goal focus; however, all sites decreased the specificity of their goal-setting.
conclusionElements of the implementation package were successful at enhancing the goal-setting process; however, how the package is implemented within the team may impact outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.